A software license that developers can use to prohibit the use of their code by applications or companies that threaten to accelerate climate change through fossil fuel extraction.
This is an awful idea.
I’m not disagreeing with you, at least in terms of FOSS it’s highly problematic.
That said, we have a long way to go before we are even close to reaching any sensible climate goals and with the urgency of the matter I’m inclined to wonder if initiatives like this, messy as they may be, are in fact necessary as part of creating a prevalent feedback loop that supports change (on all levels).
I mean, the fossil fuel industry already has at least one successful example of a green transition being feasible (and if you insist, also profitable).
The current state of software, especially ML fields that are being actively used in all industries, really doesn’t have any stance towards fossil fuels in any real, visible way. Even if this license isn’t exactly a solution, I’d like to see it inspire some more compatible responses.
Extinction Rebellion has lots of examples of “messy” initiatives that make much more sense than this. Here’s a comment I made on another post explaining why. Bottom line is that this will be completely ineffective and cause more damage to the free software community than benefit to the environment, by many orders of magnitude.
You make a good point there, it does seem quite ineffectual on closer examination.
I’m still enamoured with the idea that we can take a stance, even on a repo-level (ecological thinking shouldn’t somehow be de-coupled from source code as a default?). What do you think could be more effective on a software/repo/licensing level instead?
I don’t think it makes sense to do very much. Obviously where possible if it’s relevant to the software being developed, promote environmentally friendly practices. Choose service providers committed to the environment (do those exist?). There are certainly things like Bitcoin which have some very serious ethical concerns as they depend on enormous computation, those should probably be avoided (I say probably because I’d imagine it’s more complicated than I make it seem).
I would compare it to something like racism or homophobia. Obviously you won’t let people contribute or be involved in your community or give them custom if they are homophobic or racist, but you also won’t prevent them from using your software…
Funny how the repository is stored in a Microsoft controlled site. Get it Out of Github!!!
I guess the authors wanted to host it where it was the most relevant? Also, what are the best github alternatives nowadays?
deleted by creator
Those are couple of new names, I’ll check them out: thanks!
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
yes & no, I think? In the linked repo there are a list of the most commonly used repos in repos connected to explicit fossil fuel usage, so there seems to be little evidence that they are feeling that uncomfortable with non-permissive licenses that they outright avoid them.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yeah, it could be a little more refined, but at least it seems to work as a conversation starter (that might have been their intention?)
deleted by creator
Well, any idea can be taken to extremes and deemed meaningless. That said, if these kinds of initiative can help spread ecological awreness to areas typically spared for much discourse/focus on the environment I’m all for them. The goal can’t be “any one solution to fix all”, but rather a multitude of small, hopefully at times overlapping approaches (diversity is important in the face of wicked problems imho).
deleted by creator
Amazing! what if we got the linux foundation there
That will never happen. For a start Linus Torvalds doesn’t even like GPLv3 let alone a clumsily modified version of other licenses. You can’t change the license on software without the permission of all the different parties who contributed to it. There’s a huge amount of corporate sponsorship for the Linux foundation anyway so it’s never happening.
Agreed, there’s definitely a lot of potential with this kind of license (although they may be too narrow in their definition, it could be a slightly more widely aimed license would be more effective in practice)
